This is outstanding! There is still much work to be done before we will free ourselves from the oppressive morality that we find ourselves under, which was a poorly formed, man-made system to begin with, and is all the more useless in that it was originally designed for an agrarian, backward society, which was about as far as you could get from a modern, commerce-based, freedom-loving, intellectually and scientifically advanced society (in comparison to the ancient word).

If 2 mothers and a father is possible, why not 5 mothers, 3 fathers and a horse as the 8th parent?

Though it's not a good idea to follow people down slippery slopes, I'll give it a shot. A horse can't be the 8th parent because horses aren't self-aware, and therefore can't enter into legal agreements. And I think being two different animals might cause some complications as well. As far as the humans go, I don't have a problem with 5 mothers and 3 fathers, though I can understand why people brought up in a culture that worships monogamy would find this idea offensive. Perhaps a good compromise is to do what some cultures have done, in limiting the number of spouses to 3 or 4.

For me? No. But if it works for someone else, and they are serious about building and maintaining a family, and are not just what amounts to swingers living together, then I don't have a problem with that. Of course, I think it'd be much more difficult to have such a family in the U.S. without running into legal problems, not to mention the stigma that the people would be exposed to (though the stimga issue wasn't a mark against interracial marriages, IMO, and it's not a major one here either). And I would concede that very few people could maintain such a family (though most people have a hard time maintaining one-on-one relationships, but that's hardly a mark against monogamy).

I don't know if you are asking SmoT or me, but I wouldn't dismiss that situation as immoral or impossible a priori. However, I do think there should be a cut off point somewhere, and 5 women and 1 man is pushing it, IMO. Of course, a cut off point would be somewhat arbitrary, though perhaps some studies could examine what exactly the limits are for such families actually working. A man and a wife with 4 kids seem to have enough love and patience for each other to make things work. Of course, that is a different situation, but I do think it indicates that by simply adding a person or two you do not automatically make a situation unlivable. If different people accepted roles within the family, that would make it easiest, though obviously the roles would have to be not only accepted by the people, but I think a natural part of who they are. E.g., some people are naturally workaholics, other stay at home moms, etc. Having 4 workaholics in a family who have completely different political, religious, and social beliefs and practices, and completely different ideas about raising children, how to spend recreational time, etc. is just a recipe for disaster, just as it would also often be in a monogamous relationship.

It would seem to me that the advancement of monogamy is essential not for religious reasons, but for evolutionary, psychological, and social reasons. Polygamy encourages (and evolves) sexual jealousy, aggression, and gender inequality...all of which are contrary to the interests of a post-enlightenment society. The most significant problems in the history of humanity are caused by gender inequality, it would hardly be benificial to encourage the practice responsible for these hardships.

With that said, I can't wait until the first woman gives birth to a child cloned from her own DNA...it will blow our conceptions about family and nature out of the water, so to speak. Then there will certainly be the day when a child has multiple genetic donors...so I would emphasize monogamy more from a social standpoint, science will, before too terribly long, completely destroy our traditional understandings of reproduction.

Are either of you not happy with the 1 man 1 woman system? Or do you think that any combination is valid as long as its psychologically proven to work?

I think that if something works well for someone, then that's fine for them. Some men (and in much rarer cases, women) have issues staying faithful to one person. Of course, the response would probably be "Oh yeah, they can't be faithful to one person, and you think they'll be faithful to two?" But the answer to that is, I think, maybe. If something like Darwinian evolution happened, and men really are geared towards getting it on with as many women as possible, then it would be perfectly understandable that some men might not be effected by the cultural pressure to be monogamous. But would they be satisifed at 2, or 3, or would they just be completely promiscuous? I think it's definately possible for people to learn to stop at 2, or 3. If men can condition themselves to stop at 1, I don't see any reason that they couldn't condition themselves to stop at 2 or 3. The hardest thing would be the multiple mother-in-laws

As far as happiness goes, I wouldn't have a problem living in a monogamous relationship for the rest of my life. On the other hand, I am not against the possibility of something non-monogamous (though outright polygamy is illegal, so that's not what I'm talking about). I can't foresee a woman as perfect as my wife coming into the picture, though. Or a woman who'd put up with me for that matter!

GIC

Quote

It would seem to me that the advancement of monogamy is essential not for religious reasons, but for evolutionary, psychological, and social reasons. Polygamy encourages (and evolves) sexual jealousy, aggression, and gender inequality...all of which are contrary to the interests of a post-enlightenment society. The most significant problems in the history of humanity are caused by gender inequality, it would hardly be benificial to encourage the practice responsible for these hardships.

What's interesting about this is that some would argue that "Marriage encourages (and evolves) sexual jealousy, aggression, and gender inequality". I don't think either position is fully correct. And to whatever extent they are correct (e.g., having multiple partners causes jealousy among others), they are certainly not a rational justification for barring the practice. Shall we also ban monogamous marriage, sports, and military service because they cause and facilitate such unhealthy qualities? Of course the answer is that we can learn to control ourselves. A military man is aggressive, to a point. Sports shoves in your face the physical differences between the sexes, but that doesn't mean we should totally chuck all sports in which either men or women excel. Particularly strange to me is the gender equality idea. This might be true of a society which practices or permits polygyny, but that is not what is being talked about (by me at least). I don't see polygamy as promoting gender inequality in any way. Why would I support a system that oppresses women, when I think they are superior?

What's interesting about this is that some would argue that "Marriage encourages (and evolves) sexual jealousy, aggression, and gender inequality". I don't think either position is fully correct. And to whatever extent they are correct (e.g., having multiple partners causes jealousy among others), they are certainly not a rational justification for barring the practice. Shall we also ban monogamous marriage, sports, and military service because they cause and facilitate such unhealthy qualities? Of course the answer is that we can learn to control ourselves. A military man is aggressive, to a point. Sports shoves in your face the physical differences between the sexes, but that doesn't mean we should totally chuck all sports in which either men or women excel. Particularly strange to me is the gender equality idea. This might be true of a society which practices or permits polygyny, but that is not what is being talked about (by me at least). I don't see polygamy as promoting gender equality in any way. Why would I support a system that oppresses women, when I think they are superior?

I will confess that not everyone is in agreement on this matter, but those who do oppose monogamy on account of being oppressive generally do not object to it per se, but rather to the institution of marriage which comes with it, most famously this position was advocated by Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. To expand the institution of marriage to include polygamy is hardly a solution to the problems presented by Engels, but rather is to expand them to an even greater scale. Fortunately, society as a whole has made it possible to overcome many of these problems, such as making it easy for a woman to divorce an abusive or controling husband and allowing careers outside the home. We're a long ways from solving all of society's ills and the evils that can be brought about by the institution of marriage, but we have come a long ways in the last 160 years. We still need cultural strives to ensure that women living a domesticated life, which is perhaps the greatest source of social inequality, will, though generally economically prohibited today, become culturally unacceptable even in times of great economic affluence. I dont know that I would go as far as Engels and insist on state care and upbringing of all children, but it's certainly something to be taken into consideration.

Of course, my arguments were generally from evolutionary science and comparative biology, specificially referencing Sexual Dimorphism and Testis Size, which though a not fully understood science has given us a degree of insight into the effects of social monogamy vs. social promiscuity/polygamy in evolution. Of course, from a biological perspective I hope that genetic engineering will be able to accomplish in a matter of years that which would take evolution several million, though evolution does tend to point to the egalitarian benifits of monogamy, which is an objective reason to prefer the same in inter-human relations.

As for sports, YES, by all means ban them...force the proletariat to resort to a hobby that would at least require a minimal amount of thought. On no other thing does our society waste so much time and resources with no real hope for gain or advancement in any form.

Of course, my arguments were generally from evolutionary science and comparative biology, specificially referencing Sexual Dimorphism and Testis Size, which though a not fully understood science has given us a degree of insight into the effects of social monogamy vs. social promiscuity/polygamy in evolution. Of course, from a biological perspective I hope that genetic engineering will be able to accomplish in a matter of years that which would take evolution several million, though evolution does tend to point to the egalitarian benifits of monogamy, which is an objective reason to prefer the same in inter-human relations.

Honestly, it is good to get the scientific perspective from someone (since most won't even consider it!!!!) - and its a good way for GiC to keep himself out of trouble (relatively speaking)...

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov